Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kowsar Publishing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The discussion of them being a predatory publisher or other negative allegations are irrelevant at AfD. While promotionalism is a reason that an article may be deleted at AfD that is not the argument here. Instead there seems to be general consensus that this article is about a notable company and there is no policy based explanation for deletion of a notable topic advanced. As such there is a clear keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kowsar Publishing[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publishing company without significant coverage. De-PRODd. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half the references are sourced to the organisation's own website, and the remainder are primary sources (an open access and copyright policy as a source? Really?). Not a single one would qualify as a reliable source. Likewise, I cannot find any better sources from my own searching. Hug^syrup 09:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as yet on keeping or deleting, but must note that this publisher has been listed as possibly predatory at doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.014 and doi:10.3346/jkms.2016.31.12.1874, although it now claims to follow the code of the Committee on Publication Ethics. The possibly predatory nature seems to be the aspect of this publisher that has attracted the most attention in reliable sources, so, per WP:WEIGHT, should be mentioned in the article if it is kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As above, not notable, poorly sourced and little SIGCOV. Note: previously deleted CSD A7 here. Seems little, if any, improvement... I came across this as a draft and although I tried to find more sources, I could not do so. I noted it, but it slipped down my list of tasks and the next I saw, it had been accepted, which surprised me and brought here. Eagleash (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, it was accepted by @DGG: - courtesy ping in case they have a different perspective on this. Hug^syrup 13:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They publish 17 journals that are in web of science or scopus, which is notability for those journals. This doesn't imply it for the company, but 17 out of its 49 that meet those standards is characteristic of a notable publisher. it is so extrordinarily difficult to find sources that meet our standards for publishers of all sorts especially those who are not trade publishers, that I tend to be quite liberal in interpretation here. This is especially true of those not in the major science-article-producing countries. This company is in Iran, and most of its journalsspecialize in that region. So we also need to consider systematic bias, (FWIW, the standard for accepting at AfC isn't that it is certain to pass AfD, but that it probably will; this does not mean a bare 51%, but most reviewers use somewhere around 80% chance of passing.). DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting - it’s useful to understand better why you accepted the draft. FWIW, I’m sticking with delete. I’m afraid I don’t quite buy the argument that we should lower our standards for a topic simply because it’s too difficult to find sources. They’re almost certainly hard to find because they don’t exist (unless anyone can convince me that they are actually out there, which doesn’t seem to be your argument), and if they don’t exist then it’s not notable by our standard. One could equally argue that it’s extraordinarily difficult to find sources for ‘garage bands that have never released an album’, or ‘new actors with only a single credit to their name’, or any of the other categories of article that are regularly deleted as non-notable. Hug^syrup 06:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it's been flagged as predatory by Beall, btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm enclined to keep per DGG though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:20, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, as the subject is notable as a publisher of scientific journals. The article, however, could use some improvement. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This publisher is notable because of predatory claims and for a high retraction rate. It also publishes multiple indexed journals. Indexed journals are generally considered notable. I appreciate that notability is not inherited but also appreciate DGG's point that it is difficult to find sources for publishers and, yes, we do shortcut WP:GNG for important subjects (WP:NPROF, WP:NTV, WP:GEOLAND, for instance) that don't tend to get the mass-media attention that would give them the internet search hits. ~Kvng (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. And, yes, we do have independent sources. Beall's blog is not online any more, but still accessible in the Internet Archive and can be used as a reference and the same goes for the RetractionWatch mentioned by Kvng. It's not ideal, but it's two independent sources all the same. Given that they now have multiple journals in the Science Citation Index Expanded and Scopus, it looks like they are cleaning up their act. If Beall still maintained his list, he might have removed them by now (no way to know for certain, of course). But thanks to Frontiers Media, Beall's list is not updated any more (and Frontiers shot themselves in the foot big time, because now there never will be a mention in their article that Beall took them off his list...) --Randykitty (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are they a predatory publisher and have they been named in Beall's List? If so, I'd argue for speedy delete. Otherwise, my vote is indifferent to keep or delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would be your justification for speedy deletion? ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, you beat me to it, I had the same question for Dmehus. Since when is the quality (or lack thereof) of a subject a reason to keep or delete? If we do away with this one because it's a bad publisher, then why not also do away with Charles Manson, because he's a bad person? --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the same, or similar, way in which we purge non-notable companies. If the publisher is not a credible publisher of academic journals, does not complete any peer review, or the like, how is it any better than, say, a quasi-spammy blog like BuzzFeed? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article on BuzzFeed... We should base our !votes on policy, not opinions. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty: But I am basing my !vote on policy, specifically, WP:SIGCOV and, crucially, WP:CORPDEPTH. There are some blogs and journal articles that raise questions of this publisher's publication quality and peer review processes, so it may pass WP:SIGCOV but it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. There simply isn't enough reliable sources to write more than a permastub with a second, possibly a third, short paragraph on the publisher's apparent lack of editorial control. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify without prejudice to re-creation in the future. The factual accuracy of this article is in question, including whether the fact this publisher's journals undergo peer review as it is named on Beall's List. When you strip out that and its puffery, there is nothing worth salvaging in this article. If someone wants to work on this article, I wouldn't be opposed to Draftify, but as written, it's a delete. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Puffery" is a reason to clean up an article, not to delete it. Beall's list is a source, as is the fact that several of their journals are in Scopus and Clarivate Analytics databases. I urge you to get more familiar with how AfD is supposed to work. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think puffery can be used to explain that an article is written like an advertisement, which is a reason to delete. Nevertheless, it's not the main argument for deleting this. I think many people on here argue for keeping articles to preserve editing history and contributions, but Wikipedia does not have bylines. We're unattributed poor slugs who edit anonymously (well, some of us use our real names, like me, but what I mean is, attribution is not to us). Like I said, I see your point that an illegitimate journal publisher can still be notable, so that's why I suggested deleting without prejudice to re-creation in the future or to draftifying the article for someone to take action on. A lot of companies use Wikipedia for SEO purposes and our "no time limit" policy, with respect, is a mistake, because companies can essentially let editor inattention work in their favour. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODEADLINES is an important part of Wikipedia. Like most of us, I've got a lot of other things going on and I would not be able about to volunteer here were it not for this. Similarly WP:NOTCLEANUP is also important, as is WP:IMPERFECT. Sure there are those inside and outside Wikipedia who take advantage of this chill for their gain. I understand that can emotionally upsetting to someone with a zero-sum outlook. I understand (but don't buy into) the arguments that it reflects poorly on Wikipedia. ~Kvng (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Kvng.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Opposition to using Web of Science as Keep rationales - While this company may be notable based WP:SIGCOV (likely still fails WP:CORPDEPTH), has anyone checked out Clarivate Analytics (owner of Web of Science) financials lately? Declining revenues, increasing losses, piling debt—this thing is a corporate dung heap I wouldn't touch with a 10' pole from an investment standpoint. I see trends emerging in this space where one private equity firm passes off an investment to another private equity firm or a willing sucker until the rodeo ends. So, in short, I won't change my vote on the basis of this company likely still failing WP:CORPDEPTH, I feel compelled to make this important observation re: Web of Science (a corporate product) and Clarivate. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but this must rank among the weirdest rationales that I've ever seen at an AfD debate. Clarivate's finances have absolutely nothing to do with whether we consider its indexes reliable sources (note that WoS is not an index, it's only a platform to access Clarivate's indexes, a perhaps subtle but nonetheless important distinction). --Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, I agree, but note my opposition is to listing Web of Science, a Clarivate platform, as a deletion rationale. I agree with you that WoS is not an index but a corporate platform. Thus, I don't see how that's helpful in justifying a keep as DGG et al. said above and in reply to his comment. This company may well meet WP:SIGCOV, so that's a potential keep reason, but, similarly, potentially failing WP:CORPDEPTH is a potential delete reason. Trying to say their journals are listed in a corporate knowledge platform for the sciences is not a keep reason, in my view. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The indexing is in the Science Citation Index Expanded (accessible through WoS), which is one of the more selective indexes around. Inclusion in the SCIE is generally accepted as evidence that a journal is notable, because such an inclusion only comes after a commission of specialists has evaluated the journal. It is also significant coverage, because inclusion in the SCIE means also inclusion in the Journal Citation Reports, which publishes detailed yearly evaluations of a journal's citation history. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, I, for one, welcome the day when Crossref, ORCID, Google Scholar, and Microsoft Academic are collectively the preeminent sources for journal citations. It seems overly anachronistic and stodgy to rely, in a migratory trend of scholarly journals to migrate to digital-first or digital-only, on a printed scholarly journal which publishes citation statistics. Nevertheless, I appreciate your reply and expanded commentary. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are selective indices. Those aim to be comprenhensive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the rationale given by DGG, Headbomb has expanded the article and generally cleaned it up to an acceptable shape. I don't really see why something being a load of rubbish is a reason per se to delete an article, otherwise we wouldn't have a page on Plan 9 from Outer Space. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, lack of sourcing is the reason why I nominated this article for deletion, and the improvements to the article do not include enough sourcing in my opinion. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, Agree with you that this publisher's questioned editorial and peer review process are not, themselves, deletion rationale, but I do think, though this company may pass WP:SIGCOV, there's not sufficient WP:RS which allow it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. We should not be aiming for mediocrity on Wikipedia. Every article should have potential to become, at minimum, a C-class article (that is, not, start- or stub-class articles). Doug Mehus (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, your interpretation of WP:CORPDEPTH is a valid opinion, but it is not what that consensus-agreed guideline says, which is that the coverage in independent reliable sources "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization". That is a lesser standard than just being able to write a stub in general. If you want to argue for a stricter standard then this is not the place to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, So what the heck is WP:CORPDEPTH saying, in your opinion? Or, what's the current consensus, assuming one exists? My understanding is the test can be two-part, depending on the context of the article and the prevailing consensus of the AfD at that time. For example, many AfD discussions will see articles pass WP:SIGCOV but fail WP:CORPDEPTH and be kept. Others will fail both (the strongest deletes, arguably). Doug Mehus (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the fact, not just my opinion, is that WP:CORPDEPTH is saying exactly what I quoted it as saying. If you want it to say something else, like that there has to be enough coverage to justify a C-class article, then discuss the issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies), but don't claim that it says something that it doesn't. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, Oh, I thought you were quoting what I said. To me, my interpretation of "makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" means there needs to be enough WP:RS to write more than, or at least substantiate the WP:PRIMARY-sourced material, to wrote more than a stub-class article. I added start-class because, in my view, start-class is a variant on stub-class and the two are not demonstrably different. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.